General Discussion on CMNT

[maplebanana]

24 minutes ago, Hawkguy said:

Cool thanks. The source I was looking at said official matches, but yours is obviously correct since it is FIFA. 

So now, with this rule change, friendlies even become important which is good. I didn't like that someone could play a bunch of friendlies and still transfer.

I think you still can. You could play 10 friendlies then file a one time switch at any time. This new rule just means that a single (or 3) official match no longer cap ties you if that match was played before the age of 21. But if you play even one official match then 2+ friendlies before age 21 (or any age), then you're cap tied. So someone like Yankov, who played in one official match (Euro qualifier) and then a bunch of friendlies, is cap tied.

Clear as mud, really.

[Kent]

4 hours ago, maplebanana said:

I think you still can. You could play 10 friendlies then file a one time switch at any time. This new rule just means that a single (or 3) official match no longer cap ties you if that match was played before the age of 21. But if you play even one official match then 2+ friendlies before age 21 (or any age), then you're cap tied. So someone like Yankov, who played in one official match (Euro qualifier) and then a bunch of friendlies, is cap tied.

Clear as mud, really.

I don't think that's correct. The one time switch previously was for people that had youth team caps for one nation and then wanted to switch to another country (that they were eligible for at the time they were capped by the first country). The new rule just extends that one time switch period to 3 more games with the senior team (with all the other conditions that have been mentioned earlier in the thread), even if none of them are competitive games.

[maplebanana]

39 minutes ago, Kent said:

I don't think that's correct. The one time switch previously was for people that had youth team caps for one nation and then wanted to switch to another country (that they were eligible for at the time they were capped by the first country). The new rule just extends that one time switch period to 3 more games with the senior team (with all the other conditions that have been mentioned earlier in the thread), even if none of them are competitive games.

I'm certainly no expert, so I could be very wrong. But in trying to interpret the legalese found in the FIFA doc:

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/commentary-on-the-rules-governing-eligibility-to-participate-for-representative-.pdf?cloudid=ro8mje8vw98yp3rvfbmi

(article 9 on page 30)

Paragraph 2c is the new rule we are discussing. Based on the commentary on pg 33, paragraphs 2b - 2e were added last fall. 2a is the original rule, which I'm referring to with 'only friendlies, even if senior friendlies, doesn't cap tie'.

That being said, I just spent way too long poring over this doc and I may have unconvinced myself back and forth several times. In conclusion:

 

[Big_M]

The starting point of the switch is that the player was fielded in an official competition at any level with his current association

Then there are the conditions

If he only played in friendlies there is no one time switch to file

[spinrack]

I would like to see some reasonable explanation for why the "home" leg of the Canada-Haiti series cannot be played on home soil.

The Montreal Canadiens and the Vegas Golden Knights can freely travel across the border for NHL playoffs and play in front of a live crowd in Montreal at Bell Centre, starting Monday.  So it stands to reason that the Canadian and Haitian national soccer teams should be able to do the same and play in front of a live crowd at, say, Stade Saputo in Montreal, on Tuesday.

[narduch]

4 minutes ago, spinrack said:

I would like to see some reasonable explanation for why the "home" leg of the Canada-Haiti series cannot be played on home soil.

The Montreal Canadiens and the Vegas Golden Knights can freely travel across the border for NHL playoffs and play in front of a live crowd in Montreal at Bell Centre, starting Monday.  So it stands to reason that the Canadian and Haitian national soccer teams should be able to do the same and play in front of a live crowd at, say, Stade Saputo in Montreal, on Tuesday.

Its doubtful Haiti's players are fully vaccinated (2 doses). All NHL players are I believe.

Besides I think the reopening happened too late.

Edited June 11, 2021 by narduch

[SpursFlu]

Because why spin your wheels trying to organize a game within a few days that would be played in front of no fans. You'd also be disrupting the players creating more travel and exposing them to enhanced protocols and logistics. It would be detrimental at this point 

[SpursFlu]

5 minutes ago, narduch said:

Its doubtful Haiti's players are fully vaccinated (2 doses). All NHL players are I believe.

Besides I think the reopening happened too late.

Why would the Haitian players be any more or less vaccinated than Canadian players? They don't live in a hut out in the jungle. Theyve been boarding planes playing professional soccer the past year. Very strange comment

[narduch]

19 minutes ago, SpursFlu said:

Why would the Haitian players be any more or less vaccinated than Canadian players? They don't live in a hut out in the jungle. Theyve been boarding planes playing professional soccer the past year. Very strange comment

Haiti as a nation has no vaccines.

So even if the players managed to get vaccinated at their respective clubs, the staff wouldn't be as lucky.

Edited June 11, 2021 by narduch

[spinrack]

18 minutes ago, SpursFlu said:

Because why spin your wheels trying to organize a game within a few days that would be played in front of no fans. You'd also be disrupting the players creating more travel and exposing them to enhanced protocols and logistics. It would be detrimental at this point 

It would be played in front of fans.  Montreal currently allows 2500 in stadium venues, including Stade Saputo.

Also, the CMNT and Haiti teams would have had roughly the same time to prepare as the NHL teams, who are adapting just fine.

[Alex]

Explain then how is the olympic qualifying basketball tournament going ahead in Victoria this month? Players are coming from many more countries. 

[Obinna]

34 minutes ago, narduch said:

Haiti as a nation has no vaccines.

So even if the players managed to get vaccinated at their respective clubs, the staff wouldn't be as lucky.

I find it hard to believe the staff of the Haitian national team couldn't get access to vaccines if they wanted them, regardless of whether or not the nation of Haiti has access to them. When it comes to the national team, we are talking about very privilaged individuals relative to the rest of the population. It is very common for the privilged people in developing countries to get their hands on things the rest of the people cannot. Just the way it is.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Obinna

[spinrack]

By the way, given the large size of the Haitian community in Montreal, the Haitian team might actually prefer to play in front of fans at Stade Saputo rather than at an empty stadium in Chicago.

I use Montreal as my primary example because a sports team (Canadiens) already plays in front of fans in that city.  Also, I happen to live there 😉

[narduch]

14 minutes ago, Alex said:

Explain then how is the olympic qualifying basketball tournament going ahead in Victoria this month? Players are coming from many more countries. 

My guess is that they had a pre-planned bubble months in advance.

Really I don't know. I do know that the CMOH in BC isn't exactly the best when it comes to caring about public safety.

Of all the things to be mad at the CSA for this has to be the absolute bottom of the list.

Now if we aren't playing home games in September with fans than I will definitely be upset.

[narduch]

1 minute ago, spinrack said:

By the way, given the large size of the Haitian community in Montreal, the Haitian team might actually prefer to play in front of fans at Stade Saputo rather than at an empty stadium in Chicago.

I use Montreal as my primary example because a sports team (Canadiens) already plays in front of fans in that city.  Also, I happen to live there 😉

But why would we prefer that?

[spinrack]

Just now, narduch said:

But why would we prefer that?

Because there will still be way more Canadian fans in the stands, obviously.

[Obinna]

24 minutes ago, spinrack said:

It would be played in front of fans.  Montreal currently allows 2500 in stadium venues, including Stade Saputo.

Also, the CMNT and Haiti teams would have had roughly the same time to prepare as the NHL teams, who are adapting just fine.

Given the short time frame, I see the NHL being better able to organize a venue switch than the CSA.

Don't get me wrong though, I don't like that we are not playing at home.

It's embarassing that we have to play in the USA, like some sort of banana republic. However you slice it, we are Canada and as a country we should have our shit together by now. If the United States, with all of their so-called issues, can sort everything out and basically return to normal, what the hell is our problem?

Anyways, September is the earliest I can see us hosting games, sorry to say. And that is definitely not a slam dunk.

I would be very happy to be wrong and see +2500 fans at Saputo or BC Place or wherever. Just not optimistic about it. Besides, that's a pretty pathetic bar in terms of butts in seats, but it is what it is.

People seem optimistic, but the current trajectory is not a guarentee. I cannot stress that enough. Moving into fall we get closer to flu season and who knows what varient will pop up next. Why wouldn't governments jump all over themselves again to close things down? We have already set the prescedent, unfortunately, we have drank the koolaid and will support more lockdowns, even though we are now heavily vaccinated.

[dyslexic nam]

4 minutes ago, Obinna said:

It's embarassing that we have to play in the USA, like some sort of banana republic. However you slice it, we are Canada and as a country we should have our shit together by now. If the United States, with all of their so-called issues, can sort everything out and basically return to normal, what the hell is our problem?

I know some folks on here don’t like it, but the fact is that we generally DO have our shit together.  It is just that until quite recently, we have generally prioritized public health measures over many non-essential activities like spectator sports.  It has only been the last week or two that some jurisdictions are allowing large public gatherings.  Disliking the cautious approach that was taken (and which continues) is very different than claiming that we don’t have our shit together.   The reality is that policy makers simply have a different set of priorities than you do. 

Very early on, the US took the decision that they would host sporting events despite the recommendations of many public health officials   It has been economically beneficial but is also part of the cluster of public health decisions that have led to their high case count and mortality stats.   If you are holding them up as an exemplar of public policy, all you are really doing is saying that their values align more closely with your own - not demonstrating that their approach was objectively superior. 

 

[Alex]

44 minutes ago, narduch said:

My guess is that they had a pre-planned bubble months in advance.

Really I don't know. I do know that the CMOH in BC isn't exactly the best when it comes to caring about public safety.

Of all the things to be mad at the CSA for this has to be the absolute bottom of the list.

Now if we aren't playing home games in September with fans than I will definitely be upset.

I’m not mad at the csa at all I’m just very confused as to how it all came together just because I can’t see all these 6 teams agreeing to a 2 week quarantine. 

[Obinna]

2 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

I know some folks on here don’t like it, but the fact is that we generally DO have our shit together.  It is just that until quite recently, we have generally prioritized public health measures over many non-essential activities like spectator sports.  It has only been the last week or two that some jurisdictions are allowing large public gatherings.  Disliking the cautious approach that was taken (and which continues) is very different than claiming that we don’t have our shit together.   The reality is that policy makers simply have a different set of priorities than you do. 

Very early on, the US took the decision that they would host sporting events despite the recommendations of many public health officials   It has been economically beneficial but is also part of the cluster of public health decisions that have led to their high case count and mortality stats.   If you are holding them up as an exemplar of public policy, all you are really doing is saying that their values align more closely with your own - not demonstrating that their approach was objectively superior. 

 

There are some jurisdictions, like Winnipeg, that seem to be actually moving backwards. Sending patients to other provinces, or discouraging people to go outside, is not a sign that we have our shit together. 

This, by the way, is the city the CPL chose to have their bubble in. Figure that one out. 

You may consider not playing at home as the rightful, cautious approach, but clearly things aren't going super awesome if we need to be so cautious, right?

And you are kinda insinuating the USA sacrificed health for the economy, but regardless of the high cases and deaths early on, our program was comfortable enough to chose the USA as their base.

It's kind of ironic actually that we are flying to Haiti right now to play in the middle of their covid crisis. 

[Weng]

Cases are decreasing here in Winnipeg, and restrictions are going to be eased soon.  Let’s hope it continues to trend that way.

[dyslexic nam]

 

1 minute ago, Obinna said:

There are some jurisdictions, like Winnipeg, that seem to be actually moving backwards. Sending patients to other provinces, or discouraging people to go outside, is not a sign that we have our shit together. 

The rules about international teams crossing the border is a federal restriction. The situation in Winnipeg is an issue of the Manitoba government and the way they have implemented provincial restrictions. 

2 minutes ago, Obinna said:

This, by the way, is the city the CPL chose to have their bubble in. Figure that one out. 

Agree that is odd.  Should have been PEI again  

2 minutes ago, Obinna said:

You may consider not playing at home as the rightful, cautious approach, but clearly things aren't going super awesome if we need to be so cautious, right?

I think this is somewhat confused thinking.  Things aren’t going super awesome because COVID is a real bitch when it comes to transmissibility and virulence - especially with the new variants that have pretty much displaced non-variant COVID.  That doesn’t mean that our public health measures haven’t significantly mitigated the impacts that otherwise would have occurred.  

3 minutes ago, Obinna said:

And you are kinda insinuating the USA sacrificed health for the economy, but regardless of the high cases and deaths early on, our program was comfortable enough to chose the USA as their base.

I am not really insinuating it - it is pretty much a demonstrable fact.  They frequently implemented public policy decision that ignored the advice of their top public health officials, generally citing economic reasons as the rationale.  And as a result of those policy decisions, they had probably the worst per capita COVID impacts anywhere in the world. 

As far as us taking advantage of that “open for business” climate, there was no reason for us not to.  They offered themselves up as a sporting venue and we took that offer (and presumably compensated them for it).   As long as we were making sure our players were safe at the time, we benefit.  

4 minutes ago, Obinna said:

It's kind of ironic actually that we are flying to Haiti right now to play in the middle of their covid crisis. 

I agree.  Along with the safety and security issues that came to light with the Belize team, I am appalled that the CSA hasn’t fought like hell to get the away leg of this series played at a neutral venue.  

[RS]

Oh cool, another COVID discussion.

[Obinna]

13 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

Agree that is odd.  Should have been PEI again  

That's an odd way to spell Newfoundland

16 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

I am not really insinuating it - it is pretty much a demonstrable fact.  They frequently implemented public policy decision that ignored the advice of their top public health officials, generally citing economic reasons as the rationale.  And as a result of those policy decisions, they had probably the worst per capita COVID impacts anywhere in the world. 

Spain actually had a worse disease index than USA, as per the McDonald-Laurier Institue, but the Americans came out the other end with less misery than Canada. If they ignored the advice of their top health officials, but did better overall, maybe they weren't wrong to do so. 

29 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

As far as us taking advantage of that “open for business” climate, there was no reason for us not to.  They offered themselves up as a sporting venue and we took that offer (and presumably compensated them for it).   As long as we were making sure our players were safe at the time, we benefit.  

Agreed. We did the right thing. My point was that America must be doing fine, since it is safe to play there. They are dealing with the same COVID with the same transmissibility and virulence, but it is still safe to play there, but not safe to play in Canada? Or maybe it is safe to play in Canada, but we are moving slowly just in case. But in case of what? A setback? Have there been setbacks in the USA? Surprised we haven't seen one by now from all those packed stadiums since April.   

We may benefit now from playing in Chicago, but that won't benefit us in the Ocho. We will need our homefield. 

1 hour ago, dyslexic nam said:

 I agree.  Along with the safety and security issues that came to light with the Belize team, I am appalled that the CSA hasn’t fought like hell to get the away leg of this series played at a neutral venue.  

Yeah, it is surprising. It's also surprising that Public Health Canada didn't step in. Remember how they advised us not to play in Europe last fall? As for the security, well that comes with the territory of playing in developing countries. People have suggested Syria and Palestine are similar examples, but I am not sure civil unrest and weak policing is analagous to bombs and chemical warfare. 

[dyslexic nam]

17 minutes ago, Obinna said:

That's an odd way to spell Newfoundland

Spain actually had a worse disease index than USA, as per the McDonald-Laurier Institue, but the Americans came out the other end with less misery than Canada. If they ignored the advice of their top health officials, but did better overall, maybe they weren't wrong to do so. 

Agreed. We did the right thing. My point was that America must be doing fine, since it is safe to play there. They are dealing with the same COVID with the same transmissibility and virulence, but it is still safe to play there, but not safe to play in Canada? Or maybe it is safe to play in Canada, but we are moving slowly just in case. But in case of what? A setback? Have there been setbacks in the USA? Surprised we haven't seen one by now from all those packed stadiums since April.   

We may benefit now from playing in Chicago, but that won't benefit us in the Ocho. We will need our homefield. 

Yeah, it is surprising. It's also surprising that Public Health Canada didn't step in. Remember how they advised us not to play in Europe last fall? As for the security, well that comes with the territory of playing in developing countries. People have suggested Syria and Palestine are similar examples, but I am not sure civil unrest and weak policing is analagous to bombs and chemical warfare. 

Your “misery index” is a silly tool employed by a right wing think tank.  I don’t give it any credibility whatsoever.  I suspect the families of the 600,000 dead might debate your claim (compared to Canada’s 28,500). The idea that they “did better overall” than Canada seems like an extremely generous interpretation of events.  By almost any measurable statistic, they have done worse than most.  

Our re-opening has been slow and cautious because that is the overall approach we have taken.  Sure it is inconvenient for us right now, but things are changing.  I am optimistic that by the time we get Ocho games (and yes, I am assuming we get past Haiti) we will be able to play our games at home in front of some sort of crowd.